Once again we are hearing about 'flawed data', and once again we seem to have varied opinions as to what is the actual case.Even the so called professional's seem to get very confused as to what they say or write?.

Off subject, but only the other week I was suddenly informed by post, that I would require an urgent investigative operation, and that an appointment had already been booked at a local hospital for me to see a 'specialist nurse'. On arrival at the local hospital, and after further discussions, it was decided that I had the option of having the operation next Wednesday at an hospital 40/50 miles away, or wait till Friday for the operation at the local hospital. A no-brainer there, I choose the most convenient,and easy accessible, the local hospital. Both hospital's are apparently very competent in conducting the necessary investigative operation, but what would I know about that. I wasn't going to do a vast amount of research, before I made the decision, because as a lay-person, it made not have achieved much?.

carver

I didn't take offence at that paragraph because it perfectly demonstrates the whole point.

Parents who think it is more important for them to be close to their children than to get a proper outcome.

The thread title is entirely true.

All the studies show that surgeons performing a limited number of the most complex procedures have higher mortality rates. The proposal is to concentrate child heart surgery on fewer centres so that surgeons get the regular experience that, it has been shown, will reduce the number of deaths in children.

It follows that delaying the implementation of the proposal will result in deaths that would have been avoided if the changes had taken effect.

It is worth pointing out that the review is supposed to be done very quickly (I believe one week has been given as the target) and, given the limited number of child surgery procedures that there are and the even more limited number of those that are urgent, very few children will need to be transferred while the suspension goes on.

I see there is talk of whistle-blowers raising concerns. In the past, the NHS has dealt with whistle-blowers very badly so maybe lessons have been learned.

The NHS as many dark corners, and I have found a few, both from my own experiences, and that of others, who have discussed their concerns. But taking on the whole, the very large institution the NHS is, then there are bound to be a few wild canons around, and dare I say institutional cover-ups.

Whistle-blowing is perhaps one way some of the 'faults' come to light. But try 'whistle-blowing' and its soon becomes a state of crusader turned into a victim, especially if you are trying to deal with some rather arrogant people.

How many government (public) funded Watchdogs are there in the UK, and how many actually protect those that they are suppose to protect. It doesn't take much effort to find out about shortcomings. But the Parliamentary Select Committee's are starting to pick up a few. So perhaps things are a-changing?.

"Parents who think it is more important for them to be close to their children than to get a proper outcome."

That sums up what is a very simple equation pretty neatly. This whole issue has arisen because experts - surgeons and physicians - know that children are more likely to survive complex heart surgery if it is performed by specialist teams with experience of the procedures involved.

The number of operations means that it isn't viable to have experienced teams in every major hospital, so the proposal was for 'centres of excellence' to be established, where children would have a much better chance of a successful outcome.

Frankly it's a no-brainer, and I cannot understand why so many people seem to be having so much difficulty in grasping the point.

Interesting that Leeds Hospital is to commence operations straight away after it's found out that the data was wrong regarding deaths.

F.E "Parents who think it is more important for them to be close to their children than to get a proper outcome."

That statement is so wrong it amazes me you could even come out with it or repeat it , did you know or have you any idea about the original recommendations that Leeds Hospital was the one that should remain open because of it's location.

I've just had a look at Safe & Sustainable, the consultation document for the proposed changes. It does include options that would leave Leeds functioning but those are just some of the options put out to consultation.

I don't know whether someone has cherry-picked just those options that include Leeds to try and suggest it was intended to keep it open.